NationStates Jolt Archive

I have submitted this on the forum a few times but I have made some modofications since then.

REALZING: Not every nation believes in Capital Punishment

SHOCKED BY: The idea because a nation doesn’t believe in the Death Penalty that it would so obstruct justice

REMINDING: Criminals can only be held to account for crimes within the legal jurisdiction of their crime

STRONGLY CONCERNED WITH: The potential for fugitives especially terrorists to use this as a safe harbor to avoid jail time or execution, and the potential to further propel crime in the world

BELIVING: Refusing extradition undermines the sovereignty (while remembering all U.N. Resolutions are binding) of a nation, denies reparations for the victim(s) and can cause tension between U.N. Members and non U.N. Members

FURTHER BELIVING: Regardless of punishment a criminal must face justice

STRONGLY CONDEMNS: Frivolous executions of a minimal crime

CALLS FOR: The repeal of this resolution



"Well fellow ambassadors what do you think? Of course judging by the overwhelming support which this resolution passed it's no doubt that I am going to be flamed till kingdom come."

Presenting Ambassador: Alejandra Cannon, The Queendom of Aqua Anu

Of course. Sounds good, and I agree, but if the law enforcement sector cannot arrest the suspect before he/she/it escapes to another nation that will most likely refuse to extradite the alleged offender, they should not be given the crutch this proposal gives them.

Also, I'd take out that condemnation of frivolous executions clause. It is common sense that some one should not be executed for petty theft, unless a nation's penal code demands it. On that count, you'd be interfering with national sovereignty, and that's a no-no.

No way. You cannot possibly justify forcing a nation to extradite a person who may face execution in a foreign country, just to meet your own highly subjective standards of "justice".

Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA


OOC: Before anyone says anything, yes, I'm aware this is a repeal and it does not mandate anything. I'm responding to the principle invoked.

I think you'll have trouble getting that passed. There just won't be enough support.

Nonetheless, I put it into a bit more clear wording for you. There were a few points where the syntax was awkward and a few minor spelling errors.

REALIZING that not every nation believes in Capital Punishment

SHOCKED by the idea that a nation would obstruct justice, just because it doesn’t support the Death Penalty.

REMINDING that criminals can only be held to account for crimes within the legal jurisdiction of their crime

STRONGLY CONCERNED with the potential for fugitives, and especially terrorists, to use this as a safe harbor to avoid jail time or execution, and the potential therein to further promote crime in the world

BELIEVING that refusing extradition undermines the sovereignty of a nation, denies reparations for the victims, and can cause tension between U.N. Members and non U.N. Members

FURTHER BELIEVING that regardless of punishment, a criminal must face justice.

STRONGLY CONDEMNING frivolous executions of a minimal crime

CALLS FOR: The repeal of this resolution

Also, just some shameless self-advertising, you may want to take a look at the International Extradition Treaty (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/IET).

While we understand the belief behind this legislation, we would be completely opposed to this repeal. Whether or not a nation chooses to extradite someone should be the decision of that nation.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Seabear70 would support this resolution.

Countries that refuse extradition curently are faced with criminals, often without income, using their nations as safe havens to protect themselves from punishment.

And while it is a noble though misguided ideal to refuse extradition based on the punishment of these individuals, the end result is tragic.

Consider, a criminal, attempting to hide from his crimes in another country, without an incom, will either be a strain on the social welfare sstem, or return to a life of crime in that safe haven, simply to support themselves.

Additionally, given the succes of thier first attempt to avoid justice, there is little to prevent them from hoping the border to the next nation that will refuse extradition.

It is common sense that some one should not be executed for petty theft

This is the NSUN, until it's defined within a resolution, common sense doesn't exist.

As for this proposal, no opinion until I take a look at #103.

As for this proposal, no opinion until I take a look at #109.

What does Nuclear Armaments have to do with this repeal?

Bob Flibble (ON STRIKE)
UN Representative

Seabear70 would support this resolution.

Countries that refuse extradition curently are faced with criminals, often without income, using their nations as safe havens to protect themselves from punishment.

And while it is a noble though misguided ideal to refuse extradition based on the punishment of these individuals, the end result is tragic.

Consider, a criminal, attempting to hide from his crimes in another country, without an incom, will either be a strain on the social welfare sstem, or return to a life of crime in that safe haven, simply to support themselves.

Additionally, given the succes of thier first attempt to avoid justice, there is little to prevent them from hoping the border to the next nation that will refuse extradition.


Thank you for thoes points, do you think I should rewrite and include thoes points?

No way. You cannot possibly justify forcing a nation to extradite a person who may face execution in a foreign country, just to meet your own highly subjective standards of "justice".We are indeed heartened by Ariddia's sudden fondness for so-called "blocker" proposals. ;)

We are indeed heartened by Ariddia's sudden fondness for so-called "blocker" proposals. ;)

I hasten to assure the honourable delegate that it is a purely selective fondness. :p

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Thank you for thoes points, do you think I should rewrite and include thoes points?

As you wish.

SHOCKED by the idea that a nation would obstruct justice, just because it doesn’t support the Death Penalty.

Findhorn would re-write your "shocked" clause in this fashion:

SHOCKED that a nation would perform judicial murder just because of another nation's barbaric concept of "justice";

which is, like your clause, unduly emotive for a legislative document.

So, obviously, we won't vote for this if it ever does make quorum. But if you want it to, I'd remove the "shocked" and "just because". Something like,

CONCERNED that nations which reject the death penalty may obstruct the judicial processes of other nations.

Incidentally, have you considered how this clause can be read to contradict the rest of your argument:

REMINDING that criminals can only be held to account for crimes within the legal jurisdiction of their crime

You've given us a perfect justification for refusing to do anything about your criminals -- they can be held to account for their crimes ONLY within the legal jurisdiction of their crimes (you might want to think about the placement of your "only", too).

Findhorn doesn't have legal jurisdiction in the area where their crimes were committed. Therefore, Findhorn can't hold them to account unless they start committing crimes in our jurisdiction.

So we can't do anything about your criminal, including extraditing them, because that would be "holding to account".

I would not be surprised if Mme Zyryanov were writing me a furious note under her desk there -- why would an anti-death-penalty nation be at all helpful with the wording of a pro-death-penalty proposal -- but, cher madame, consider: how many more debates like the "Right to form unions" fiasco of a repeal can any of us endure?

Believing that schoolyard rhetoric does not belong in legislation, we have decided to start helping to avoid it.

(I'll admit, our good intentions may not last the distance. We are but simple rural folk.)

-- Brother Tim, Findhorn's UN observer.